The Allahabad High Court has expressed its dissatisfaction with the Varanasi police's handling of a case involving a man who has been missing for over four years. The court has criticized the police's apparent inability to locate the man, especially after a lower court had directed him to provide maintenance to his wife following allegations of domestic violence. This situation has prompted the High Court to question the effectiveness and sincerity of the police force in carrying out its duties.
The case originated when the missing man's wife filed a domestic violence complaint against him. In November 2016, a lower court ruled in her favor, ordering him to provide her and their daughter with a separate living space and a monthly maintenance allowance. The court further mandated that the Station House Officer (SHO) of Sarnath ensure compliance with this order if the husband failed to do so. Subsequently, the husband appealed to the High Court and obtained an interim stay on the lower court's orders in December 2016. However, when the High Court requested his presence, his counsel reported that he had been missing since April 9, 2017. A missing person's report was filed in May 2018.
In March 2021, a Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP) from Varanasi submitted an affidavit to the High Court, stating that a dedicated police team was actively searching for the missing man. However, Justice Manju Rani Chauhan, in a September 2021 order, deemed the police's account "highly improbable" and "nothing else but a scene of drama." The court found the affidavit submitted by the Varanasi District Police to be unconvincing. Justice Chauhan also highlighted that numerous similar cases involving pending maintenance orders were causing hardship to women due to non-service of notices.
The High Court questioned how, despite having modern facilities, the police were unable to locate a person missing since April 2017. The judge suggested that either the police lacked the necessary powers or facilities, or they were simply unable to find the missing man, implying that the case should be transferred to another investigative agency. The court also noted the woman's submission that she had provided the police with information regarding her husband's whereabouts, but they consistently arrived after giving him ample time to escape.
This is not an isolated incident. In a separate case from 2020, the Allahabad High Court addressed the disappearance of a Banaras Hindu University (BHU) student, Shiv Kumar Trivedi, who was last seen at the Lanka police station in February 2020. The court sought explanations from the Varanasi district police chief, district magistrate, and the SHO of the police station. The student's father claimed that the police initially denied that his son had been at the police station. The court later directed the Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP) of Varanasi to appear in person to explain the circumstances of the student's disappearance. The police stated they were searching for the missing student with "great enthusiasm," and the court warned that the investigation would be handed over to an independent agency if the police couldn't find the student.
These cases highlight a recurring theme of alleged police inaction or inefficiency in missing persons cases within the Varanasi jurisdiction. The Allahabad High Court's strong remarks underscore the judiciary's concern over the apparent lack of diligence in these investigations and raise questions about the police's commitment to fulfilling their duties.
